Wednesday, October 21, 2009

117 comments:

Alex
said...

This is where so many atheists get it wrong. They think most believers think of them as being immoral. (JP might be an exception.) In fact, most believers can name very nice and upstanding atheists. It's that believers think that atheists, in general, have no stable moral SYSTEM. It's the cut flowers syndrome. A cut flower might look prettier than a planted flower. However, over a course of time, the cut flower is going to die.

Of course, atheists can point to religious folks who believe in a stable system which includes some BAD ethics, and of course believers can so easily let their adherence to the /good/ ethics slack off, so believers have their work cut out for them in making these arguments.

Well, a number of atheists have responded, when I told them that if they succeed in their goal of making the world atheistic that, if history is any indiction, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder, that it is okay, because the motivation for the murder wouldn't be atheism. so basically atheists seem to believe that mass murder is not a problem, as long is it isn't done to promote atheism. I find that a little troubling.

According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones. Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it.

According to atheism human life has no value. We are merely miniscule bags of chemicals stuck to the surface of an insignificant planet.

According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do. If we murder, this is merely the result of brain chemistry and bad influences, but not any bad choice because free will does not exist.

If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism.

Atheists may claim that they are good because invariably crime does not pay in the long run (which is not necessarily true – look at Stalin and Mao who died peacefully in bed) or because humans are instinctively good (which is nonsense – read a history book or a newspaper).

>>>According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones. Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it.

A lie, a total fabrication of atheistic values.

>>According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do. If we murder, this is merely the result of brain chemistry and bad influences, but not any bad choice because free will does not exist.

Another calumny. Even if man were no more than a higly evolved bag of chemicals, it does not follow that human life has no value.Another example of rancid inferences derived from septic logic from JP, the master of both. No wonder fundamentalist discernment is held in such disrespute by almost all recognized scholars.

>>>If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism.

Hmmm, you might expect all those newly minted atheists to kill their parents as revenge for keeping them in darkness all their lives. Their retribution would be as dopey as JP's premise.

As ususal JP creates a misrepresented strawman. From a fundie's standpoint its the only way to discredit atheism. He can't employ the rules of logic, so his only recourse is to demonize Stalin and Mao and expand their horrors to all atheists. I bet he enjoys it better than sex. But then again, there are so few pleasures left to fundies when the mind is captured and is rendered to a prisoner to idiocy.

I think you are way off base in assessing what atheism implies from a moral perspective.

You say: "According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones."

I say: "here are no divine consequences. A materialist, a naturalist, a realist - whatever - we all know from observation that every action has consequences.

You say: "According to atheism human life has no value."

I say: This is a patent mischaracterization of atheism. To reject the hypothesis that we have been created in a god's image is not - I repeat, not - to devalue human life. You insist on saying that atheism equals no value to human life, but we continually insist that we absolutely do have value - just not tied to a fictional deity. Indeed, I think by trying to lock people to a god, theists devalue humanity.

You say: "According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do.:

I say: I am very disappointed that you would ascribe this kind of view to atheism when it is precisely the opposite of what follows from atheism. Without gods, all there is is personal responsibility. No longer can we say "God made me do it," or "It's because of man's sinful nature." To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully.

"What consequences did Mao, Stalin or millions of other unpunished criminals suffer?"

Are you asking if these people went to hell? truthfully, I don't know if they did and I don't think they did because I doubt the existence of a hell.

Is this all you want out of your religion, the mere idea that these people got what they deserved in the afterlife?

"No one's going to like you if you tell them that you think they have no value."

So you think atheists are lying, that I'm lying. OK, that's your opinion. But as I continue to maintain, the value of your life does not depend on god at all and it never has depended on god.

"Why is a human murderer responsible for doing something he had to do according to the laws of physics and chemistry?"

How interesting that you think atheism overlooks social laws that have been reasonably asserted to define responsibility and deal with it in a consistent way. You seem to see atheism as denying personal psychology, individual responsibility, and the ability to make choices about how to behave. You also equate atheism with both pure hedonism and pure materialism.

I don't think your version of atheism exists. We really just think gods don't exist and that religious self-flagellation and cries for special privilege are silly. Everything else is just the same as you.

I think I did answer your questions. Mao, etc. didn't go to hell. Human murderers are responsible because we have, through reason, estabkished laws that define responsibility and assign appropriate punishment for violations.

You say atheism mainly appeals to addicts. That's your opinion, I suppose, but I don't believe it. I think the appeal is mainly to the intelligent.

I asked: What about criminals who went unpunished like Mao? I didn't see that answered yet.

"I think the appeal is mainly to the intelligent."

I happen to belong to American Mensa, the national high IQ society. According to the March 2006 bulletin page 26, 4.06% are atheists. We are about as diverse as the general population. Intelligence seems to have little to do with religion.

"I don't see how you've refuted anything I wrote at Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:35:00 AM.

Just to insist that atheists are good, intelligent people doesn't prove much. I can insist the moon is made of cheese."

I'm not trying to refute, necessarily. When you say, for example, "According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones," I think this is basically true if it means that there is no divine retribution for human actions.

But then you go too far to follow with this conclusion: "Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it."

This statmement forgets that there are indeed other consequences to crime besides divine retribution. Remember all those "obvious material" consequences? They include jail, fining, feeling guilty, hurting someone else's feelings, family shame, and so on - none of which requires a god.

Indeed many people commit crime because of their holy inspiration. They'll shoot people in a place or worship or fly planes into buildings, or embezzle, or commit espionage in the name of their god - to GET a divine reward in the afterlife!

I thik that very often when you try to insist about what atheists believe and what atheism entails, you err in a serious way. I've shown your logic is flawed in these cases by explaining how it moves to nonsequitur and to conclusions that do not follow from the premises.

"If I have no free will so I chose nothing so I have no reason to feel guilty about anything."

*Sigh* But how do you get that atheism entails the non-existence of free will?

Just because I don't believe ancient stories of a sky monarch for a desert people doesn't mean that I reject the entirely separate notion that sentient beings can freely choose to take actions on their own behalf.

Indeed, because I reject that these fairy tales are reality I also accept that human behavior is a complex process that ultimately makes the individual responsible for himself/herself.

If I believed in the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity , I would also have to believe that I was merely his pawn and he was moving me around and controlling my thoughts and desires.

The core belief of atheism is the concept that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us. Atheism is the religion based on this belief.http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

This is what I have learned based on countless dialogues with atheists over many years.

From this belief it logically follows that we have no free will, since free will implies a non-physical soul and obviously a non-physical soul could not spontaneously evolve from chemicals.

According to atheism, there are no consequences to our actions other than the obvious material ones. Therefore if I believe that I am smart enough or lucky enough to get away with crime, I’ll do it.

According to atheism human life has no value. We are merely miniscule bags of chemicals stuck to the surface of an insignificant planet.

According to atheism, we have no personal responsibility for anything which we do. If we murder, this is merely the result of brain chemistry and bad influences, but not any bad choice because free will does not exist.

If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism.

Atheists may claim that they are good because invariably crime does not pay in the long run (which is not necessarily true – look at Stalin and Mao who died peacefully in bed) or because humans are instinctively good (which is nonsense – read a history book or a newspaper).

"From this belief it logically follows that we have no free will, since free will implies a non-physical soul and obviously a non-physical soul could not spontaneously evolve from chemicals."

No, it does not follow logically, and no, there is no implication. Just because you say it follows or itr implies doesn't make it so. Can you explain exactly how rejection of the god myth also destroys the notion of free will as a result?

Besides, as I have shown, belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing god undermines the concept of free will.

You say you want to be honest, but you do not seem to be doing the messy intellectual work to connect your assumptions to your conclusions.

"If we do find atheists living peaceful, honest, sober lives (which as far as I know is actually rare) this is the result of the influence of parents and grandparents who were not atheists. It is in spite of their atheism."

Can we agree that people do evil things? That is, some people at some times perform acts that others consider evil?

Can we also agree that while some cultures currently think it's the height of morality to punish a petty thief by severing his hand, other cultures think the punishment is excessive and even itself evil?

Can we agree on these points?

Honestly, I do not *know* why some people do evil things. But I do know that theism doesn't explain why. If you think that theism gives you the answer - because we're all SINNERS! - then my opinion is that you are fooling yourself with a comfortable untruth.

I've explained the basis for saying anything is evil: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2009/10/morality-without-god.html. I tire of having to explain this ad nauseum. Now, what is your basis for saying anything is evil?

"Can you explain exactly how rejection of the god myth also destroys the notion of free will as a result?"

Well it really follows from embracing the evolution myth. From this belief in evolution it logically follows that we have no free will, since free will implies a non-physical soul and obviously a non-physical soul could not spontaneously evolve from chemicals.

I however believe in God, deny evolution, believe in the soul, free will and personal responsibility.

Larry, your comments would be a lot more interesting if you could provide proof, logic, reasons, etc instead of just saying what you believe - over and over. I don't think you even read half the responses people make to you.

I know many people on the Internet just get a kick out of making anti-theistic rants, but I'm not necessarily going to publish them. That’s why I moderate comments.

"Larry, your comments would be a lot more interesting if you could provide proof, logic, reasons, etc instead of just saying what you believer or feel - over and over."

Funny, I'm the one using clear reasoning and pointing out the gaping holes in your thinking.

I am sorry that hard-core thinking that bothers with details isn't interesting to you.

Besides, at my spot I post the proofs. Here, I just want to correct your inaccuracies and errors. It's a tough job.

For example (proof and reasoning coming) the baseless definition of atheism as a religion demonstrates how you conceive of atheism as an Other (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other). Because you see atheism as an Other, you are incapable of seeing it in anything but negative terms. It also logically follows that your funadamental position toward atheism is narcissistic. You believe that it's all about orthodox judaism, when - let's be honest - the numbers of people who know about OJ and care about it are shrinking.

Following this logic, it should be clear that your best course of action is to free yourself from your atheism obsession.

"I however believe in God, deny evolution, believe in the soul, free will and personal responsibility."

Yes, and you hold your beliefs without evidence, clear efinitions, or clear logical grounding. I always back up my statements but you just keep repeating the same baseless opinions again and again.

I'm trying to help you achieve the objectives of your blog, but you need to try and reason more rigorously than you have in the past. It's just not good enough anymore for you to throw out statements that have no tie to reality.

"Because you see atheism as an Other, you are incapable of seeing it in anything but negative terms."

While you are totally objective. Of course that's obvious.

Atheism is a belief system defining spirituality, the afterlife, man’s origin and morality and therefore I believe it is a religion. The American government defines atheism as a religion and surveys regarding religion usually include "atheism" as an option. This video clip features atheist missionaries.

Atheists may argue that since they do not believe in a personal god and do not pray, atheism is not a religion, however the same is true of some Buddhists and Scientologists.

That's fine. Censorship becomes you. But for the record, I have indeed directly answered every question asked of me, even the stupid questions. I've provided evidence and a clear path fro premise to conclusion.

If you want to use the watchmaker analogy as evidence of judaism being true, that's your call but it's a ridiculous claim because life and the universe are different than man-made, designed things. You use a bad argument, I call you on it, and then you get huffy. You employ logical fallacies, I identify them for you, and then you get huffy.

Hysterical ! JS believes that sarcastic video is evidence that atheists missionize.But it may not be a bad way to to kill a few hours. Going door to door, debunking god and the hereafter seems a refreshing diversion from porn, drugs, alcohol and unemployment. I think we should try it out in the holy sinicure of Monsey NY. Larry, you think you might be sober enough to join me next sunday? We'll convert a few chareidim to our religion and patronize the local whorehouse when we've completed our annointed task. The god of atheism is good!

Abe, you missed the point of the video. The point was - Mormons would surely object to atheists proselytizing them, therefore it is unfair for them to proselytize atheists. Clearly, the makers of the video, who are atheists, saw no problem with the idea of atheists being missionaries.

Whether you want to call atheism a religion, philosophy or cult is not very important. I would say “evil cult” is good, something like Satanism.

>>>Clearly, the makers of the video, who are atheists, saw no problem with the idea of atheists being missionaries.

Clearly, your incapacity to recognize the sarcasm in that video, clouds your ability to draw logical conclusions. The producers of that video, dripping with sarcasam, depicts all religions as a laughing stock, not just mormons. They presented mormons as the target of their derision because they are more egregiously offensive in their true-belief, proselytization than other xtian sects.

>>>However to claim that atheism is “just the truth” and therefore not a religion is silly. Every religion claims it is truth. What would they claim?

Atheism, by definition, is the truth about god's nullity, but is in no way a religion. That you persist in claiming that atheism is a religion lends credence to the adage, "misery loves company."

Actually Judaism, by definition, is the truth about God's existence, but is in no way a religion. That you persist in claiming that Judaism is a religion lends credence to the adage, "misery loves company."

I wish there was more of a debated going on. Instead, I post a reasoned article and then atheists dump some irrational rants in the comments section. When pressed for proof or logic, they just disappear.

I think "The Circle Game" might oiginally be a Tom Rush song, but I'd have to look it up.

I know perfectly well that JP is unlikely to change his dogmatic thinking. However, I am always amused to see how he evades and avoids whenever his faulty logic is called out. Instead of going back and working out details, he attacks.

See, for example, what he says above regarding Hitchens. It's all ad hominem, no substance.

In any event, returning to the original post, it's nice to see a positive ad making peopoe aware that their neighbors are finding natural morality free of religious superstition and dogma.

"A man who has memorized a few questions about God which any 12 year old Jew could answer who thinks he's a philosopher."

You call this substance? First, you don't answer the questions. Second, you simply wave your hands and dismiss Hitchens and whatever he says. You haven't addressed the main ideas or arguments at all.

That's not substance, JP, that's evasion.

As to your last point, I suppose you are trying to say that being good without god is like being good while on drugs. It's a silly and invalid analogy because there is no basis for comparing a reasoned rejection of a certain idea (an idea, by the way, that has no empirically verificable evidence) and being under the influence of dangerous chemicals.

If your analogy were valid, then you could say that holding any unfavorable opinions or reaching any unfavorable conclusions would be equivalent to being high or drunk. If this could be said, then how would the line be drawn between favorable and unfavorale? And who would draw that line?

But again, the analogy stinks at a basic level because ingesting foreign substances has far greater effect than simply thinking and reasoning and reaching a conclusion on a matter.

You want to insist, it seems, that without god being good is aberrent behavior. If you want to make this case, it would help if you have some research from a quality research institution. Until then, you're just blowing smoke from your nether region.

"I'm pointing out that none of Hitchens' question amount to anything."

Maybe. Since you can't or won't address the ideas/arguments, I guess we'll never know.

The CoR poster isn't trying to prove anything. It's not a fully formed argument and it's not supposed to be. It simply invites people to learn more about the CoR community. Groups and organizations do this all the time, but apparently folks only get up in arms when atheists advertise.

Do yuo have any basis for saying tht religious groups breed peodophiles? In order for that to be true, you would have to demonstrate that pedophiliua is more common among religious groups than among the non-religious. A number of studies have shown that public school teachers are, not all of whom are religious are particularly probe to molest children. And the teacher's unions are very quick to send lawyers and advocate whenever a teacher is accused.

And one of the reasons that Rabbis might protect OJ's accused of molesting is because they are afraid that the accused will not get a fair trial in a secular court.

While you're chasing after pedophiles, Larry, you might first want to try to stop some mass murderers in your own religion, atheism.

"Yet the focus on nukes comes at the cost of other things worth noting about North Korea. Human rights, for instance. In recent years the outlines of daily life, and the state’s miserable part in it, have become plain. First came the horror stories told by refugees in China escaping the famine from 1995-98 that killed 600,000-1m people. A more detailed picture has since emerged from refugees now settled in South Korea, from aid-workers, diplomats and from satellite pictures which, among other things, map another form of encampment—the North’s gulag."

You didn't address my first point. Ahve you demonstrated that pedophilia is more common among Catholic preists? If it isn't then there is no basis for saying that religion breed pedophilia.

And there is a very big difference between saying that pedophilia is moral, legal and a justified, and saying that someone who is accused should get a fair trial. The whole basis of the American legal system is that the accused should get a fair trial. Y'know, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Torah also considers a fair trial an important value.

JP prefers the stories from a 2000 year old book to those of scientists who use reason and observation to formulate and reject hypotheses.

JP, the primitivity of your philosophy speaks for itself.

Taken to its logical conclusion, fundamentalist Judaism leads to a lifestyle such as that in Williamsburg or Bnai Brak where girls are shidduched when they are children and families are blacklisted for marrying of their children if they have inherited diseases or a "wayward" child who reject their version of Judaism.

It leads to "modestry patrols" that assualt women for not going to the back of the bus or wearing short sleeves. Or stoning people for driving on the Sabbath.

And as far as girls are concerned, I suppose atheist communities are a paradise - where 14 year old girls are given alcohol at parties by older boys and end up in abortion clinics filled with sexually transmitted infections.

So what's wrong with Judaism? It's older than atheism? So what? Atheism is older than Wicca or Scientology.

Nonsense. Those disfunctional afflictions are probably epidemic in the chareidi community. Its bubbling to the surface because it can no longer suppressed by the gedolim. http://www.vosizneias.com/40064/2009/10/20/jerusalem-opposition-grows-over-knesset-ban-against-underage-drinking.

North Korea is deist. They have a living deity named Kim Jong-il. Just do a Google search of Kim Jong-il and deity. They call him the Sun of the 21st Century, the Eternal Sun, the Guardian Deity of the Planet, the Sun of Socialism, and the Ever-Victorious General (see http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... 12_01.html)

The North Koreans are either sufferring from mass delusion or fear. I suspect it is the latter, just like most monotheistic religions - follow me, subject to my will, or I'll burn you.

Larry Tanner wrote:"Human murderers are responsible because we have, through reason, estabkished laws that define responsibility and assign appropriate punishment for violations.""To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully.""Without gods, all there is is personal responsibility. No longer can we say "God made me do it," or "It's because of man's sinful nature." To be an atheist is to accept personal responsibility fully."A believer will say something like "all we can do is repent and pray fervently," which is the opposite of accepting personal responsibility." ( @@ )"I also accept that human behavior is a complex process that ultimately makes the individual responsible for himself/herself."

It's time that you and JP use the exact same definition of "responsibility." It's clear that you're not and are thus talking past each other. Are you talking about /accountability/? If so, then the believer (in his mind) is accountable to God, who he HOPES will forgive him after "repenting and praying fervently" (Larry conveniently neglected to mention "rectifying the situation"). And the atheist (in his mind) is accountable to himself, who he KNOWS will forgive himself.Sounds like the atheist has it a lot easier.Oh, and the words before the "@@" are an example of a strawman. A real poor one at that, too.

"You didn't address my first point. Ahve you demonstrated that pedophilia is more common among Catholic preists? If it isn't then there is no basis for saying that religion breed pedophilia."

Nathan, go back and read. I gave you a perfetly good, factual basis.

The more important issue is why you lie and mis-represent what others say. Here is exactly what I said: "Religious orgaizations are famous for breeding pedophiles, enabling them, and covering up their crimes. These are your people, and this is what your religion wreaks."

Notice the "are famous for" in there? Notice the part after "pedophiles"? Distort and evade, distort and evade ... either you and JP are the same person or you have initimate meetings twice a week to reiterate the baloney you want to spew here.

You obviously want Jews to observe mitzvahs. We all have a limited amount of time. Do you think it would be better to reach out to non-frum Jews who have some positive feelings about Judaism, and use those positive feelings to encourage mitzvah observance than to waste your time trying to convince atheists that they're wrong?

It seems to me that it's more worthwhile cultivating positive thoughts about Judaism than it is trying to attack someone who's already set in their way.

Do an honest chesbon nefesh. If you haven't convinced anyone to change their beliefs or actions, you're not using your time effectively.

You are like Christians who argue that the Spanish Inquisitors were not "real Christians". Likewise, Communists are not "real atheists".

"Religious orgaizations are famous for breeding pedophiles"

Atheism is a religion.

"If you haven't convinced anyone to change their beliefs or actions, you're not using your time effectively."

You are not interested in doing anything except silencing rabbis, like the Stalinists who shot us down in pits.

Let tell you a little secret Mr Bozoer Rebbe shit for brains - plenty of bullets have been fired and we are still here. I would advise to worry more about your suicidal and sexually acting out daughters rather than spending time blogging.

The words "breeding" usually means "producing." That means that you are saying yhat religious organizations, produce more pedophiles. I don't see any basis for this.

And as far as covering it up, the only examples you have produced are the Catholic Church, and some people within the Orthodox Community. Two examples out of hundred or even thousands of religious organizations hardly qualifies as "famous." Unless by famous you mean "got a lot of press". Press reports harrdly qualify as valid statistics. And being scientific and all, you should know about statistics.

I don't have time to wathc the video. Does it adress the Darwinian origin of the human ability to act in unDarwinian ways? Like how can a personsacrificwe his life to save a stranger? Or how about unDarwinian self destructive behavior, like suicide, addiction, etc, etc.

"I don't have time to wathc the video. Does it adress the Darwinian origin of the human ability to act in unDarwinian ways? Like how can a personsacrificwe his life to save a stranger? Or how about unDarwinian self destructive behavior, like suicide, addiction, etc, etc."

Yes, most if not all of this is discussed in the video. Please find just one hour for education. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo. You are always asking questions. Well, here is a great answer for you.

"If they do not believe in the Biblical God and do believe in evolution, they are atheists."

This may be your personal definition, but it's not correct general. An atheist believes in no gods, period. The so-called biblical god, who is not the only god mentioned in the bible, is on the same plane as living 'gods' such as Kim Jong-il. The biblical god is simply non-existent while Kim Jong-il is a man, although also a lunatic with enormous political and cultural power.

Alex, you seem to have difficulty making a coherent point, and you don't seem to know what makes a straw man argument a straw man argument.

Here's what American Atheists says about atheism as a religion:-----------------------------------

Theists usually define atheism incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, from the original Greek meaning of "without gods." That is it. There is nothing more to it. If someone wrote a book titled "Atheism Defined," it would only be one sentence long.

Let us look at the different definitions of religion and see if atheism belongs in any of them.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

No atheism resides in that definition. Atheists do not believe in a supernatural power or powers.

2. Beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Atheism does not have a spiritual leader and atheism does not have any rites or rituals (practices) around such a spiritual leader. Atheism requires no initiation, no baptism, there is no Atheist Bible (Koran, Vedas, etc) to read, no rituals that atheists must go through to join an Atheist Church (temple, mosque, synagogue, sect, etc), and no central beliefs that all atheists must adhere to in order to be "true atheists."

The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Every atheist is as unique as a fingerprint when it comes to his or her individual philosophy, convictions, and ideals.

How do you know that there does not exist a space alien, made of Dark Energy, who is capable of creating entire galaxies in a nanosecond and who has an intelligence one trillion times greater than ours? Of course you don't know that.

Rather an atheist is someone who does not believe in the Biblical God and who believes that evolution made us. This seems to be the most accurate definition.

"How do you know that there does not exist a space alien, made of Dark Energy, who is capable of creating entire galaxies in a nanosecond and who has an intelligence one trillion times greater than ours? Of course you don't know that."

I don't know that. Neither do you. What's the difference between us? You are worshipping a space alien called "hashem" or "adonai" or ba'al" or whatever.

"Rather an atheist is someone who does not believe in the Biblical God and who believes that evolution made us. This seems to be the most accurate definition."

Nope. The biblical god could be any number of deities and semi-deities named in that book. They all are rejected for non-existence just the same as people claiming to be divine and just the same as other supposed gods, like zeus or vishnu. God = fraud.

I don't get it. Flatness means that the curvature we should expect to see according to the General Theory, if the unverse will either collapse or expand forever is not detectable. It doesn't mean that there is no energy. we know there is energy because we can detect it.

Y'know, there is a growing field called biomimetics. Engineers are studying organisms to get ideas for designing stuff. The bumps on the leaing edge of a humpback whales flippers give it better water flow. Engineers are desgining streamlined cars based on boxfish. Scientists copied a beetle's carapice to make a desalinization plant. And DNA appear to be a better for processing data than silicon. So there is something out there that is more intelligent than people.

Random quantum fluctuations are a depend on sapce and time. But before the big bang, there was neither space, nor time. So the universe couldn't bea product of random quantum fluctuations, because they could exist without space or time.

Some of the books I've read recently, like "The Endless Universe" try to get around this problem by saying that there was something before the big bang.

And the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, so it won't stay flat. All that dark energy.

Anonymous listed a couple of definitions of "religion", but the online dictionary lists some more.Ex: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Fallacious argument, JP. Your "proof" that we don't embrace global warming, is reductio ad absurdum and confuses social darwinism, which is a long-defunct political philosophy, with evolutionary biology, which is science.

Most educated secular people in evolution, and to claim that "nobody believes in evolution" is false and really quite pitiful.

Face it, JP, you don't know what atheism is at all. You just try to religious-ify atheism to drag it into the muck where you live (figuratively speaking, of course).

God is mythical and has only the mind given him by the people who dreamed him up. They found a neat way to employ themselves, fill their coffers, and keep people in ignorance and fear. Congratulations, you're becoming their poster child.

Larry, the "No True Scotsman" idea is merely an example of a tautology. "All Scotsmen are by definition good. Anyone bad is not a Scotsman. Therefore all Scotsman are good." That may be true as far as it goes, but it is an unnecessary repetition of meaning, effectively saying the same thing twice.

That's basically what atheists do when I point out that Mao or Reinhard Heydrich for example were atheists. I am told "Fascism and Communism are religions so those people were not true atheists." So by definition bad people are not atheists so by definition atheists are always good.

Anyhow, we see that no one puts an ounce of faith in evolution, therefore the Watchmaker Analogy stands and God made us.

The US is currently blowing up Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and probably a few other places, while denying health care to people in the US with the wrong documents. Are there some evil priests behind all that? Or perhaps human nature?

this is the problem. some sects of orthodox Jews have aligned themselves (for political reasons) with the christian far right. thus, many of their ideologies have permeated the wall that separates the two and have distorted orthodox ideals. Rav Joseph B Solveitchik himself said that their is nothing wrong with evolution, unless it guides ones ethics. just as the origins of man is not a book of morals, the bible is not a science book, evolution, creationist evolution works well with Judaism and makes more sense than the alternatives. the six days of creation were not actually six days, the Rambam states how these "days" before time are merely reference points to help us understand as they are indeed periods of time rather than 24 hr cycles of the earths rotation. in conclusion, it is sad to see that some orthodox Jews blindly reject science and truth based on elements of another religion, which in fact go against many traditional tenants of Judaism.

yes, this couple was the first couple of "intelligent beings" not the first actual man-like sapiens, the torah states many things which need to be seen through a knowledge and understanding that is taught by the oral torah, which was given on sinai along with the written torah. Thus, one must be careful not to take the written torah at face value all the time lest you end up as a ka'arite.

the teachings of the rabbis in the oral torah has always followed the science of the times. Concepts of a flat earth, geocentric universe, spontaneous generation, and many other scientific concepts which have since been disproved are all stated by the rabbis in the talmud. thus, it is appropriate to say that evolution like these other modern scientific theories are compatible with the unique LIVING BIBLE of the jews. Unlike fundamental christians we do not align ourselves with a scientific view based on the bible, just as Rashi state in Genesis that the bible is not a history book, it is not a science book either! (by the way, where do you wear your teffilin?)

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew and I live in Rockland County, NY.
I was raised as a non-practicing Lutheran by my adopted parents and I converted to Judaism at age 16.
This blog as a rule follows the teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s. Specifically, I have been very influenced by the recordings and writings of Rabbi Avigdor Miller obm.
Click for more details about me.